Video: Trump argues with CNN anchor over Birtherism

posted at 5:11 pm on April 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

He argued about it with Meredith Vieira on the Today Show this morning too but Suzanne Malveaux was better prepared for him this afternoon. Three things here. One: I’m not sure why he thinks it’s so far-fetched that Neil Abercrombie, the new governor of Hawaii, would remember Obama as an infant. Granted, it’s an amazing coincidence that they’re both now prominent Democrats, but Obama Sr. and his wife must have made quite the striking couple in the early 60s when interracial marriage was still illegal in many states. I’ll bet a lot of people who met them and their little one at the time remember them. Two: Unless Trump’s thinking of some other interview with Obama’s grandmother, Malveaux’s right that the whole “she admits he was born in Kenya!” meme is based on a misunderstanding. You can read the transcript of the key part of that interview here. She’s also right that some of The One’s childhood friends have reminisced about him publicly, contra what Trump claimed not long ago on “The View” about no one in his past remembering him. (He seems to have dropped that talking point now.) If he’s serious about building a base by impressing Birthers, you would think he’d see these factual challenges coming and be ready to parry them.

Three: Some of the love for Trump in the polls right now is due to his willingness, as Rush Limbaugh says, to go right at Obama by bringing up subjects that his fans in big media have declared to be off the table. Fair enough, but that’s partly a function of the fact that the base is unenthused thus far about its choices for 2012, especially with tea-party rock stars like Palin, Pence, and Rubio possibly not running. If Palin jumped in and started to “go right at Obama” on, say, spending, it’s easy to imagine the conservative reception for Trump’s Birther broadsides turning from amusement and applause for his fearlessness to annoyance and even anger that he’s sucking media oxygen away from more substantive lines of attack and making it easier for the media to “kookify” the GOP. No one has a problem with it now because no one’s in the race yet, just Pawlenty and Cain and a bunch of heavy hitters weighing their options. But once the race is on and we get deeper into policy (speaking of which, did Trump really tell Joe Scarborough that we should seize Iraq’s oil fields?), who’s going to want to hear this?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

I loved this fearless interview! The more the media tried to debunk Trump’s allegations, the more ridicule he threw back. That’s what’s missing with most of the GOP. Romney isn’t the only conservative that hides under his desk from these sleaze ball media hacks.

Ridicule is what’s needed with the Obama media flakes and Donald gave it in spades here. This was red meat to me.

I’ll bet a lot of people who met them and their little one at the time remember

Wow! You just don’t stop!

Please provide FACTS and DATA. You have a freaking short memory don’t you AllahPundit. I remember how during the campaign and bid deal was the vetting of Obama. Name me a list of childhood friends that remember him as a child in Hawaii. Tell me some antecdotal story from one of these friends. How about during his college years? Anyone remember him at school there? Where are ALL these stories of Obama and his family AND how much of a STRIKING IMPACT meeting them had on them.

Without it then simply STFU with this crap where you make plausible excuses because you’re stuck on opposing the idea that people want to confirm his birth.

You mean like paying trolls to come on conservative websites and throw out accusations of racism and make every effort to deflect any attention to the birth certificate issue like you are doing?

sharrukin on April 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM

So you basically yell troll, every time someone disagrees with you!! I’ve been posting here forever… I’m sorry, but I think that there are more pressing issues than questioning Obama’s citizenship and I do think that it makes the people who are all consumed by it seem kooky and a bit racist.

Not a big Trump fan, but I’d certainly enjoy election night 2012, Trump looking into the camera with the victory baloons all around, saying “Hey Obowma, You’re fired” while giving Obowma the heave ho with his thumb.

Some of the love for Trump in the polls right now is due to his willingness, as Rush Limbaugh says, to go right at Obama by bringing up subjects that his fans in big media have declared to be off the table.

Damned right. Since when is the left entitled to tell us which issues we’re allowed to raise and which are ‘off the table’. They get away with it because most of our pols are cowering invertebrates. Not so, The Donald.

And where is it written that Øbama is excused from making a serious reply to a legitimate question?

As for birtherism in general, you guys really don’t see how racist this is? seriously?? The demand for the birth certificate only came up when the black guy ran for President. I don’t remember anyone demanding Billy Jeff’s birth certificate. I love the Hillbuzz guys for being fun, but don’t agree with their Palin boosterism and some of their sillier statements… However, I tend to think that Axelrod might be feeding the situation to make Obama critics seem racist to indy voters.

Illinidiva on April 7, 2011 at 11:27 PM

You don’t understand why HillBuzz is doing what is doing. Remember one key thing: Obama ran against Hillary and the media is doing the dirty work for him on Palin. On both occasions (and I spoke to PUMAs in person at a McCain/Palin rally) they switched sides because they saw the Obama middle-finger scratching his nose to BOTH.

That angered Hillary’s people like you have no idea. They are the nicest, outspoken and loyal people you can find. They do love Hillary-but since Palin faced (facing) the same treatment and Hillary so far is not running they are supporting us. The only thing I heard that of course there’s the disagreement is the abortion issue.

I have no beef w/Hillary because eons before I moved to the States, Billy Jeff and Hillary were/are very respected in Puerto Rico.

It is time for the GOP to warm up a plane and start dumping possible candidates to US Territories and seek the regular folks’ votes and not leave it to the delegates. There’s more than 4 million people in a 100X35-mile island that seek attention and caring from a Republican president.

The best we’ve got is Jose Serrano and Andy Card, who was the one who traveled to PR to deliver letters of encouragement and thanks for the pro-statehood rallies I attended which was almost all of them. A letter is not enough. I can cheer a bit that the US President took a moment to send a letter through Andrew Card, but really?

I know how Americans feel about THAT situation and ITA now that I am here; not now, not with Obama and not with our deficit. I do agree with Serrano on the issue IF I can run for POTUS because I am an American too; just born on a US Territory, and PPF Jr. too.

More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States.

The research for that report was done in person on the ground in Hawaii. It explains the folly of believing those announcements prove anything about Obama’s birth. They are merely bits of evidence to consider, not proof.

flyfisher on April 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I recommend that anyone who takes the eligibility issue seriously should read the article linked by flyfisher in the above quote. It explains who placed the birth announcements and why they are not credible evidence of the place of Obama’s birth. Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit should be ashamed of themselves for not looking into the provenenace of the birth announcements and, for that matter, the entire eligibilty issue. And the term birther should henceforth be used to describe people who are convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, despite a lack of credible evidence, and despite his refusal to provide his LFBC. The quote which appears below is from the article linked in flyfisher’s comment.

Therefore, it has now been confirmed by authorities in Hawaii and abroad that Obama’s birth announcements appeared in two local Hawaiian newspapers without the birth having been medically verified as occurring in Hawaii. The announcements are automatically triggered from information provided by the Department of Health, not the hospital. Therefore, since we already know that Hawaii’s Health Department registered foreign births, the announcements would include births for these registrations as well, along with local birth registrations.

As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks, we would like to say this:

Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter.

He’ll get better arguments; he’s meeting with WND soon so I’m not worried. Cashill already says he must’ve read his book, so he’s off to a great start.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 7, 2011 at 5:19 PM
WND? He might as well seek advise from the Weekly World News while he’s at it. After all, Batboy might just be Obama’s real father.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM

WND has led the Birth Certificate issue from the beginning, and has done EXTENSIVE research and investigation. Mock them all you want, but they have uncovered quite a few good nuggets on this and countless other issues regarding O’Communist’s radical connections and history. Since when does the threat of being called “BIRHTER”! by the water-carrying, in-the-tank main stream LIBERAL/socialist media who has no credibility have the real right to scare anyone?

There is only one thing that will clear this up and that is producing an actual BC that is proven to be authentic.
BOOM, Done, Game over!

Oh, what? there is not one?

You say Aber-crumbly can’t find one and he is governor?

esnap on April 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Well alright then, if that is all it takes to clear this up for you. Here is his birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii. link.

Here are statements from the Hawaii Health director attesting to the veracity and authenticity of the document referenced in immediately preceding paragraph. 10/31/08:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Boom, done , game over. Right?

Perhaps, instead the proof you are looking for is more akin to this:

Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?
Dave Chappelle: Okay, I’d have to see a video of him singing “P__ On You,” two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly’s grandma to confirm his identity.
R. Kelly’s Grandma: That’s my Robert, always p__ing on people.

Here. Let’s get the Truth from THIS guy!
Sultry Beauty on April 8, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Was the undercover cop a man or a woman? Anyone here from hawaii know about the area this guy was arrested in and what kind of prostitution goes on there? How come barry’s high school girlfriend or college girlfriend have never been interviewed? Come on TMZ, do some real reporting. What’s the deal with reggie love anyway? He’s got no wife or girlfriend either. I think we have a gay, marxist, unqualified and ineligible president who’s only goal in life is to be the man his mother constantly abandoned him for. I really hope trump actually sent PIs to hawaii to investigate this dirtbag.

Oh so your “Certificate of Live Birth” issued by the State of Hawaii several years after the 1961 birth is valid. But the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii (and certified by the director of the Hawaii Department of Health) that I provided in my link is not valid. Why?

Are both official and recognized government records of the state of Hawaii? Yes.
Do both give the required nformation to determine the location and date of birth? Yes.
Are both documents prima facie evidence admissible in any U.S. court of Law? Yes.

Oh so your “Certificate of Live Birth” issued by the State of Hawaii several years after the 1961 birth is valid. But the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii (and certified by the director of the Hawaii Department of Health) that I provided in my link is not valid. Why?
New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM

It’s really very simple. The VALID document is an affidavit. It is signed by a witness. (to the birth.) Therefore it constitutes testimony by a member of the community in good standing attesting to something of which they have first hand knowledge.

Funkino’s statement and computer printout? Merely the dronal reciting of the fact that some sort of record exists.

Are both official and recognized government records of the state of Hawaii? Yes.

Yes, both of them are, but since State government’s veracity on the truthfulness of information contained on amended birth certificates is completely untrustworthy, only the document which is attested to by the trusworthy witness (the doctor who signed it.) constitutes actual proof.

One is just a record which is subject to manipulation, the other is an affidavit from an eyewitness. The affidavit constitutes proof. The other is a manipulate-able entry in a file.

Do both give the required nformation to determine the location and date of birth? Yes.
Are both documents prima facie evidence admissible in any U.S. court of Law? Yes.

No. The computer printout from Hawaii is not known to contain truthful information. Rukiddingme (conspicuously absent) knows very well that birth certificates can easily contain false information, so nothing on it can be considered believable.

In order for the other document to contain false information it would require that a Professional in good standing with the community would perjure himself about a matter on which he is considered a knowledgeable expert. (birth)

Therefore, a computer printout from the state is worthless as proof, while an affidavit signed by a witness IS proof.

There is a big difference between a “certificate of live birth” which is a birth certificate, and a “certification of live birth”, which Hawaii gave out like prizes in a crackerjack box.

Rebar on April 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Do you base this on any statute, rule or court case? Or are you making this assertion on the magical difference between a “certificate” and “certification” based on nothing more than unverified assertions of the internet and forwarded chain emails.
An acutal journalist (Honolulu Star Bulletin) actually went that extra step and asked Hawaii’s department of health if there was any difference between the certificate and certification. Well surprise… surprise… surprise there is no difference between a certificate and a certification. The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, according to Janice Okuba (Hawaii department of Health Spokesperson). She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
Asked about that Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet by Obama, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

I’ve shown you mine. Why don’t you show me your proof that there is legal difference between a certification and a certificate. Or that the standards for receiving either one is different.

Interesting theories. However the Federal Rules of evidence and Hawaii rules of evidence disagree with you. The birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii is admissible proof.

It may be admissible, but it’s not proof. Bureaucrats can allege anything they want when they write their rules, but Actual facts will not bow to their authority.

These people may PRETEND that a print-out from a computer, which is squishy truth at best, (Can be modified by a judge, yet still called “true.” ) is admissible and believable as evidence, but someone that knows as much as you probably do about judges modifying birth certificates knows full well that it might not actually be the truth.

As Whoopi Goldber would say, it may be “proof”, but it’s not “Proof proof.”

Actually in a court of law, an affidavit signed by a party is inadmissible unless the party that signed it is present in court. An affidavit from a non-appearing witness is nothing more than Hearsay.

Oh, right. Like a last will and testament or something?

However, a Government issued birth record is admissible on its own. See Fed Rule of Evid. 803(9).

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Admissible as proof that a record exists. It may be prima facie proof, of what it claims, but it isn’t ACTUAL proof. You know very well what the difference is, yet you feel the need to defend manipulation and deceit rather than the objective truth.

Answer me this. Is it possible for a state certified birth certificate to contain information which is NOT the Actual Truth?

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

By referring to Obama as a natural born citizen Fukino gives herself away as either a partisan or someone who is careless with words. So who knows what they have on file in Hawaii. It is highly unlikely that it is a LFBC or it would have been released by now.

The United States is a nation of laws. The eligibility of Obama to be POTUS should be a matter of certainty, not assumptions based on parsing the words of an official. Show me the document signed by the doctor who delivered him..

By referring to Obama as a natural born citizen Fukino gives herself away as either a partisan or someone who is careless with words. So who knows what they have on file in Hawaii. It is highly unlikely that it is a LFBC or it would have been released by now.

The United States is a nation of laws. The eligibility of Obama to be POTUS should be a matter of certainty, not assumptions based on parsing the words of an official. Show me the document signed by the doctor who delivered him..

Basilsbest on April 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM

My first thought when I heard her statement was “How the H3LL would SHE Know? Most people think “Natural Born Citizen” means the same thing as “Citizen”, and they also think that the only thing required to be a “Citizen” is to be born on an American claimed piece of dirt.

If it comes out that he was NOT born on American soil (Thereby meeting the weakest possible test for basic citizenship) then Funkino needs to see some prison time.

It may be admissible, but it’s not proof.
DiogenesLamp on April 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM

What is proof in your lexicon? The document I’ve linked to is explicitly prima facie evidence of Obama’s birth in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961. Prima facie evidence is a pretty high form of proof. Unless it is rebutted prima facie evidence is proof by its very nature and will carry the day in any court of law in these United States.

I admit I know a little about judges, evidence, proofs, etc. I have never heard of any judge changing the place of birth on a person’s birth certificate. Perhaps you can point me in the directon of such an action by any judge in any state in the U.S. for the last 222 years of our nation’s history. You seem to believe that a judge can just willy-nilly change the place of birth on a birth certificate.
Just because a judge may order that adoptive parents be listed as parents on a birth certificate does not mean that a judge can order anything else changed on a birth certificate. The legislature in each state gives very limited power to a judge to modify birth records for purpose of substituting adoptive parents for birth parents. The statutes in each state do not allow the Judge to modify any other parts of the birth record.

The COLB offered by Obama is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted. Under FRE 803(9).
An affidavit from the doctor who delivered Obama would be inadmissible unless that doctor was there to testify. The affidavit would be inadmissible hearsay. The government document submitted by Obama falls under an exception to the Hearsay Rule, therefore it is admissible. Why is it admissible you ask? The courts and Legislature of the United States have deemded government records to be trustworthy, unless said document is shown otherwise. You have not shown any evidence that the COLB is untrustworthy.

By referring to Obama as a natural born citizen Fukino gives herself away as either a partisan or someone who is careless with words.

My first thought when I heard her statement was “How the H3LL would SHE Know?
DiogenesLamp on April 8, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Ahhhh…. she reviewed his birth certificate and it said he was born in Honolulu Hawaii. Therefore, under the Constitution(as amended) he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

He was born in the United States. The 14th amendment states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Therefore he was born a citizen of the United States. Thus he is a Natural Born Citizen. He did not acquire his citizenship through naturalization. Thus he is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.

You are not answering my question, and you are ignoring the salient point. You know full well that the “legal” system will accept FALSE information as “Proof.”
Don’t quote me “Rule this… Procedure That….”. Use the Scientific standard of proof, not the legal standard.

Let me ask you again. Is it possible to have false information on a “Certified” Birth certificate?

Ahhhh…. she reviewed his birth certificate and it said he was born in Honolulu Hawaii. Therefore, under the Constitution(as amended) he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

She reviewed his “Vital Records.” She didn’t mention the word “Birth Certificate” in that sentence. She is also unqualified to render a legal determination. I”m suspecting she is probably unqualified to render a medical determination either.

He was born in the United States.

Allegedly. A record of Vital statistics from a state that has extremely low standards for issuing such records is not credible proof that he was born in this country. Even if he was, he doesn’t meet Article II standards.

The 14th amendment states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Therefore he was born a citizen of the United States. Thus he is a Natural Born Citizen. He did not acquire his citizenship through naturalization. Thus he is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 5:44 PM

The 14th amendment does not repeal article II qualifications for President. You also misinterpret it’s meaning in regards to “natural born citizen.” People must be born “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.” Foreign parents are not “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” they are subject to the Jurisdiction of their home countries.

The 14th amendment was based on the Civil Rights act of 1866, (look it up.) which is far CLEARER as to the meaning and intent the Authors were espousing.

I didn’t come up with this but I think it puts accross my feelings about dealing with Birthers perfectly. This is attributed to someone calling himself DadBode

Birther: “Oh why won’t Barack Obama release his birth certificate? If only he did that simple little thing, we could put this whole matter to rest. And it would only cost him ten dollars.”

Rational Person (RP): “Didn’t you see the birth certificate he posted online?”

Birther: “Anyone could have Photoshopped that. In fact, I saw an anonymous guy on the Internet claim that he could prove it was faked. He’s an expert in ‘instructional media.’”

RP: “You do realize that ‘instructional media’ doesn’t have anything to do with document analysis, right?”

Birther: “Regardless, it’s still fake. If Obama truly had nothing to hide, he’d release his long-form birth certificate, not this computer printout.”

RP: “How should he release it? If he simply posted a scan online, wouldn’t you accuse it of being faked?”

Birther: “Oh, certainly. Anything he produces shouldn’t be trusted unless it’s reviewed by a competent authority, like a judge.”

RP: “So if Obama obtained his long-form birth certificate, published it, had a judge review it, and then the judge announced that it was legit and he was born in Hawaii, that would be enough? You’d give up arguing that his election is illegitimate, stop filing lawsuits, and concede that he’s eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Hardly. For all we know, Obama’s parents could have lied to Hawaiian officials, and claimed he was born in Hawaii, when he was actually born in Kenya. Or Canada. For all we know, Hawaiian officials themselves might be in on the cover-up.”

RP: “What if it can be proven beyond a doubt that the birth certificate is real and accurate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Let’s say there’s a video of John F. Kennedy himself playing midwife to Ann Dunham. Would that settle the matter?”

Birther: “It’d settle the matter of where he was born. But that doesn’t mean he’s a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President.”

RP: “Why?”

Birther: “Because before he was born, his mother married a British citizen. That means she gave up her American citizenship even before he was born. And Obama can’t be a natural-born citizen if neither of his parents were American citizens.”

RP: “So you’re begging Obama to release his birth certificate, even though you admit it won’t actually stop your complaints.”

Birther: “That’s right.”

RP: “Well, what if I can show you that American citizens don’t give up their American citizenship when they marry foreigners? Will that put this to rest?”

Birther: “Oh, no. Even if I accepted that he was born in Hawaii, and that his mother was still an American citizen, his father was still a Kenyan and British citizen, and that means Obama inherited dual citizenship and thus wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “I see. For the sake of argument, then, let’s say that I could show you that there’s no requirement that a natural-born citizen be born of two U.S. citizens. Would that satisfy you?”

Birther: “Sorry, but no. Even if the birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii, and he could show that his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and that his father’s citizenship didn’t disqualify him, there’s still the matter of Indonesia.”

RP: “What does Indonesia have to do with anything?”

Birther: “When Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro, she gave up her U.S. citizenship, and by proxy, Obama’s U.S. citizenship. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “No, it doesn’t work that way. Didn’t we already cover this with her first marriage?”

Birther: “It doesn’t matter. Even if her marriage didn’t invalidate his citizenship, when Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he ceased to be a U.S. natural-born citizen. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “A minor child can’t surrender his U.S. citizenship that way. Besides, there’s no evidence that he was adopted in the first place.”

Birther: “Even if that’s the case, he’s still not in the clear. Because when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on his Indonesian passport, he gave up his U.S. citizenship.”

RP: “Apart from the fact that that wouldn’t have sacrificed his citizenship, do you actually have any direct evidence that he in fact did use an Indonesian passport?”

RP: “Do you have any evidence that that is actually true about travel to Pakistan in 1981?”

Birther: “No.”

RP: “I see. OK, if you put aside the passport, would you concede that he’s eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Still no. When Obama was adopted, his name was legally changed to ‘Barry Soetoro.’ There’s no proof he ever changed his name back, but he ran for President as ‘Barack Obama.’ And that violates election law. I will never accept his Presidency until I see the documentation where he changed his name back to Obama.”

RP: “That’s impossible. How can he possibly produce that documentation, when he never changed his name away from Obama in the first place? What proof is there that he was ever legally adopted or changed his name? And even if he was adopted, what possible reason would there be to legally change his first name to a nickname?”

Birther: “A school application in Indonesia says his last name was ‘Soetoro.’ They take those applications very seriously in Indonesia, so this is solid legal proof that he was adopted and had a name change.”

RP: “And the fact that the same application says he was born in Hawaii?”

Birther: “That was a mistake.”

RP: “OK, so to recap, you wanted Obama to release a birth certificate, but when he did, you accused it of being a forgery? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And you say that if he simply shared his long-form birth certificate with the public, that could be forged too? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want him to release his long-form birth certificate and to have that birth certificate reviewed by a judge, to satisfy his critics and answer the questions they’re asking? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if the judge affirms that the birth certificate is legitimate and it says his place of birth was Hawaii, you say it might be falsified, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And even if he proves he was born in Hawaii, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother’s first marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that the marriage isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his father’s citizenship, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his father’s citizenship isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother’s second marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his mother’s second marriage isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his supposed adoption, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via adoption, you claim that he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his 1981 travel to Pakistan, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via passport, and even when you run out of citizenship arguments completely, you then claim his election is illegitimate because his legal surname is Soetoro, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want to know why Obama won’t take the simple measure of releasing his birth certificate, when you already have at least eight consecutive fall-back arguments you’ll make if he does so, whereby you’ll continue to insist that he’s ineligible for the Presidency even after he proves that he was born in Hawaii?”

I didn’t come up with this but I think it puts accross my feelings about dealing with Birthers perfectly. This is attributed to someone calling himself DadFOOLBode

Constitutional Documentarian Birther: “Oh why won’t Barack Obama release his birth certificate? If only he did that simple little thing, we could put this whole matter to rest. And it would only cost him ten dollars.”

Profoundly Irrational Person (The Real Birther): “Didn’t you see the birth certificate he posted online?”

Constitutional Documentarian Birther: Anyone could have Photoshopped that. In fact, I saw an anonymous guy on the Internet claim that he could prove it was faked. He’s an expert in ‘instructional media.’

Why don’t you learn the difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a real Birth Certificate. Until you do you are wasting my time and the rest of your supposed conversation is nonsense. You are the real birther. You believe something which hasn’t been established. Go to Western Journalism and learn how Hawaii routinely registered the births of children who were not born there and stop pretending you have a clue. You don’t. There’s a reason he’s spent $2 million dollars preventing a Court from ordering its release.

RP: “You do realize that ‘instructional media’ doesn’t have anything to do with document analysis, right?”

Birther: “Regardless, it’s still fake. If Obama truly had nothing to hide, he’d release his long-form birth certificate, not this computer printout.”

RP: “How should he release it? If he simply posted a scan online, wouldn’t you accuse it of being faked?”

Constitutional DocumentarianBirther: “Oh, certainly. Anything he produces shouldn’t be trusted unless it’s reviewed by a competent authority, like a judge.”

RP: “So if Obama obtained his long-form birth certificate, published it, had a judge review it, and then the judge announced that it was legit and he was born in Hawaii, that would be enough? You’d give up arguing that his election is illegitimate, stop filing lawsuits, and concede that he’s eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Hardly. For all we know, Obama’s parents could have lied to Hawaiian officials, and claimed he was born in Hawaii, when he was actually born in Kenya. Or Canada. For all we know, Hawaiian officials themselves might be in on the cover-up.”

RP: “What if it can be proven beyond a doubt that the birth certificate is real and accurate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Let’s say there’s a video of John F. Kennedy himself playing midwife to Ann Dunham. Would that settle the matter?”

Birther: “It’d settle the matter of where he was born. But that doesn’t mean he’s a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President.”

RP: “Why?”

Birther: “Because before he was born, his mother married a British citizen. That means she gave up her American citizenship even before he was born. And Obama can’t be a natural-born citizen if neither of his parents were American citizens.”

RP: “So you’re begging Obama to release his birth certificate, even though you admit it won’t actually stop your complaints.”

Birther: “That’s right.”

RP: “Well, what if I can show you that American citizens don’t give up their American citizenship when they marry foreigners? Will that put this to rest?”

Birther: “Oh, no. Even if I accepted that he was born in Hawaii, and that his mother was still an American citizen, his father was still a Kenyan and British citizen, and that means Obama inherited dual citizenship and thus wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “I see. For the sake of argument, then, let’s say that I could show you that there’s no requirement that a natural-born citizen be born of two U.S. citizens. Would that satisfy you?”

Birther: “Sorry, but no. Even if the birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii, and he could show that his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and that his father’s citizenship didn’t disqualify him, there’s still the matter of Indonesia.”

RP: “What does Indonesia have to do with anything?”

Birther: “When Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro, she gave up her U.S. citizenship, and by proxy, Obama’s U.S. citizenship. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “No, it doesn’t work that way. Didn’t we already cover this with her first marriage?”

Birther: “It doesn’t matter. Even if her marriage didn’t invalidate his citizenship, when Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he ceased to be a U.S. natural-born citizen. So he can’t be President.”

RP: “A minor child can’t surrender his U.S. citizenship that way. Besides, there’s no evidence that he was adopted in the first place.”

Birther: “Even if that’s the case, he’s still not in the clear. Because when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on his Indonesian passport, he gave up his U.S. citizenship.”

RP: “Apart from the fact that that wouldn’t have sacrificed his citizenship, do you actually have any direct evidence that he in fact did use an Indonesian passport?”

RP: “Do you have any evidence that that is actually true about travel to Pakistan in 1981?”

Birther: “No.”

RP: “I see. OK, if you put aside the passport, would you concede that he’s eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Still no. When Obama was adopted, his name was legally changed to ‘Barry Soetoro.’ There’s no proof he ever changed his name back, but he ran for President as ‘Barack Obama.’ And that violates election law. I will never accept his Presidency until I see the documentation where he changed his name back to Obama.”

RP: “That’s impossible. How can he possibly produce that documentation, when he never changed his name away from Obama in the first place? What proof is there that he was ever legally adopted or changed his name? And even if he was adopted, what possible reason would there be to legally change his first name to a nickname?”

Birther: “A school application in Indonesia says his last name was ‘Soetoro.’ They take those applications very seriously in Indonesia, so this is solid legal proof that he was adopted and had a name change.”

RP: “And the fact that the same application says he was born in Hawaii?”

Birther: “That was a mistake.”

RP: “OK, so to recap, you wanted Obama to release a birth certificate, but when he did, you accused it of being a forgery? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And you say that if he simply shared his long-form birth certificate with the public, that could be forged too? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want him to release his long-form birth certificate and to have that birth certificate reviewed by a judge, to satisfy his critics and answer the questions they’re asking? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if the judge affirms that the birth certificate is legitimate and it says his place of birth was Hawaii, you say it might be falsified, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And even if he proves he was born in Hawaii, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother’s first marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that the marriage isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his father’s citizenship, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his father’s citizenship isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother’s second marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his mother’s second marriage isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his supposed adoption, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via adoption, you claim that he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his 1981 travel to Pakistan, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via passport, and even when you run out of citizenship arguments completely, you then claim his election is illegitimate because his legal surname is Soetoro, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want to know why Obama won’t take the simple measure of releasing his birth certificate, when you already have at least eight consecutive fall-back arguments you’ll make if he does so, whereby you’ll continue to insist that he’s ineligible for the Presidency even after he proves that he was born in Hawaii?”

Don’t quote me “Rule this… Procedure That….”. Use the Scientific standard of proof, not the legal standard.
DiogenesLamp on April 8, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Well its hard not to quote the law when you are seeking a legal opinion disqualifying the president. The rules, procedures, and laws that you scoff at are the framework by which our system of government works. Asking me to ignore the statutes, laws, court rules etc and still give you opinions about Obama’s legal eligibilty to be President is impossible.
Your argument appears to be specious and begs your audience to ignore the laws, rules, procedures that you don’t agree with. When I point out the problems with your argument, you insist that the legal framework and foundations of this country be ignored.

Why don’t you learn the difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a real Birth Certificate. Until you do you are wasting my time and the rest of your supposed conversation is nonsense. You are the real birther. You believe something which hasn’t been established. Go to Western Journalism and learn how Hawaii routinely registered the births of children who were not born there and stop pretending you have a clue. You don’t. There’s a reason he’s spent $2 million dollars preventing a Court from ordering its release.

Basilsbest on April 8, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Ah… why don’t you look to my comment above at 5:03 where I’ve already addressed your argument. The gist of the comment is: Local Honalulu newspaper actually asked the Department of Health if there was any difference between a Certification and a Certificate. Department of Health said: No difference. Therefore, your argument is unsupported. Provided contrary evidence please.

Play the idiot, why don’t you. Does someone from the DOH have to tell you that a LFBC is signed by the doctor who delivered the child and a COLB is not?

Basilsbest on April 8, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Well no one likes being called an idiot, Basilsbest.
The experts in Hawaii’s birth certificates (i.e. the Hawaii Department of Health) say that the Certification of Live Birth is the Hawaii’n Birth Certificate. Call me crazy for beliving those officials that are tasked with monitoring vital records and issuing birth certificates over you.

The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, according to Janice Okuba (Hawaii department of Health Spokesperson). She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
Asked about that Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet by Obama, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

I should have known that some internet commentator (who’s probably never been to Hawaii or even even his local state department of health)knows better than the officials of the State of Hawaii.

Well its hard not to quote the law when you are seeking a legal opinion disqualifying the president. The rules, procedures, and laws that you scoff at are the framework by which our system of government works. Asking me to ignore the statutes, laws, court rules etc and still give you opinions about Obama’s legal eligibilty to be President is impossible.
Your argument appears to be specious and begs your audience to ignore the laws, rules, procedures that you don’t agree with. When I point out the problems with your argument, you insist that the legal framework and foundations of this country be ignored.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 6:42 PM

And you STILL didn’t answer the question!

I find the law often amusing. In debate, there is something called the “Fallacy of Authority.” It is considered to be an erroneous argument because it doesn’t prove anything through the merits of it’s own logic, it merely borrows an “aura” of respectability based on other people’s Authoritative pronouncements.

The Legal system incorporates this fallacy into it’s very structure. It’s called “Precedent.”

It is axiomatic that the standard for legal proof is not nearly so stringent as the standard for Scientific proof. What many in the legal profession regard as “rock solid” would be regarded in the Scientific or Engineering field as “Hand Waving.” (Meaning of dubious and/or miraculous pre-supposition.)

Now you can twist and dodge the ACTUAL truth, using sophistry, misdirection and legal subterfuge, but at the end of the day you aren’t persuading anyone with discernment. I ask again:

Is it possible for a “Certified” birth certificate to contain false information?

Ah… why don’t you look to my comment above at 5:03 where I’ve already addressed your argument. The gist of the comment is: Local Honalulu newspaper actually asked the Department of Health if there was any difference between a Certification and a Certificate. Department of Health said: No difference. Therefore, your argument is unsupported. Provided contrary evidence please.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Oh yes! Far be it that anyone should consider the possibility that a government bureaucrat might actually lie! Or Worse! Not know what they are talking about!

The ONLY conclusion possible is that what they are saying is the gospel truth and that they are the absolute authority on the accuracy of their pronouncements.

You ARE aware of the passage in Obama’s book where he said he didn’t HAVE a birth certificate listing Barack Obama Sr. as his father?

Also, is it Possible for a “Certified” Birth Certificate to contain False information?

Well no one likes being called an idiot, Basilsbest.
The experts in Hawaii’s birth certificates (i.e. the Hawaii Department of Health) say that the Certification of Live Birth is the Hawaii’n Birth Certificate. Call me crazy for beliving those officials that are tasked with monitoring vital records and issuing birth certificates over you.

Well alright then. I believe EVERYTHING a bureaucrat tells me, don’t you? Especially when it completely CONTRADICTS something that is an obvious and axiomatic fact.

I should have known that some internet commentator (who’s probably never been to Hawaii or even even his local state department of health)knows better than the officials of the State of Hawaii.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 8, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Actually, the way things are going, you might not be far wrong. If someone hands me a cup of dirt and explains to me that it’s coffee, I wouldn’t take them seriously either.

You simply don’t understand that we are not going to buy this assertion that they are the same thing. The assertion is self contradicting. If they were the same thing, why the fuss about letting us see the OTHER version of the SAME THING??????????

You would never make it in Engineering. You believe made up stuff too easily.

Now how about answering that persistent question?

Is it possible to have FALSE information on a “Certified” Birth Certificate?

The experts in Hawaii’s birth certificates (i.e. the Hawaii Department of Health) say that the Certification of Live Birth is the Hawaii’n Birth Certificate. Call me crazy for beliving those officials that are tasked with monitoring vital records and issuing birth certificates over you.

Dozens of Hawaiian LFBCs have been posted on the internet. They contain a box for the attending physician to certify the information. There is no signature on a Certification of Live Birth. You are blowing smoke, no matter how you attempt to stand on authority. If Hawaiian authorities are telling you there’s no difference between a COLB and a LFBC, they are lying. Are you lying? Or, are you just an idiot?

Read this buckeye and perhaps you won’t be so cluelessly uninformed and gullible a>

Basilsbest on April 8, 2011 at 7:13 PM

He won’t read that. He doesn’t CARE what the actual truth is, he cares about pushing his narrative. Something I learned a long time ago is that you can’t reason a person out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.

He KNOWS his arguments are false. He KNOWS that “Certified” birth certificates can contain FALSE information. He simply refuses to debate. He is not here to debate or reason. He is here to pushback against the calls for investigation, and the demands for accountability.

He is a source of noise which is intended to blunt the public’s interest in this issue. He is like the Cowboy trying to run the stragglers down so as to keep the herd all moving in the same (non trouble causing) direction.

We are trying to generate a stampede, while he is working to stop it. It’s just that simple. Now his reasons for doing so MIGHT be because he has the best interest of conservatives and Republicans at heart, but more likely it is because he is either an liberal ideologue, or perhaps a paid partisan running intentional interference for his employer.

Is it possible to have FALSE information on a “Certified” Birth Certificate?

DiogenesLamp on April 8, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Well, my friend who was adopted as a baby in 1963 (though not in Hawaii) told me that the law at that time allowed birth certificates to be forged by court order, with the adoptive parents’ names as the birth mother and father (which opens up a whole new can of worms!).

That’s just one anecdote, but it suggests that the answer to your question is, yes, it is possible to have false information on a certified birth certificate.

Well, my friend who was adopted as a baby in 1963 (though not in Hawaii) told me that the law at that time allowed birth certificates to be forged by court order, with the adoptive parents’ names as the birth mother and father (which opens up a whole new can of worms!).

That’s just one anecdote, but it suggests that the answer to your question is, yes, it is possible to have false information on a certified birth certificate.

Mary in LA on April 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Thank you for responding. I am actually being disingenuous with my question. It implies that I do not already know the answer. You see, *I* was born in 1961, and *I* was adopted in 1964, and I have both my original (listing my actual birth father and mother) and I have my amended “Certified” birth certificate listing my New Parents names as my “birth” parents.

I just want to see if New_Jersey_Buckeye will admit what many people already know to be an obvious truth. The State will LIE on their official documents. They will intentionally produce documents attesting to something that is absolutely not true. New_Jersey_Buckeye knows this. That’s why he’s so energetically dodging the question. :)

The State will LIE on their official documents. They will intentionally produce documents attesting to something that is absolutely not true.

Indeed, they will, as my friend’s story and yours both attest. Unfortunately, because of that, I doubt that we will ever see definitive evidence either way regarding the details of Obama’s birth or parentage. He’s been in office long enough for any necessary forgeries to have been completed and original documents destroyed. I think all we can do is vote him out in ’12.

Indeed, they will, as my friend’s story and yours both attest. Unfortunately, because of that, I doubt that we will ever see definitive evidence either way regarding the details of Obama’s birth or parentage. He’s been in office long enough for any necessary forgeries to have been completed and original documents destroyed. I think all we can do is vote him out in ’12.

Mary in LA on April 8, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I would like to SEE the forgeries that could explain his reluctance to show them. At this point if he produces something mundane and unobjectionable, people will look at him like some sort of peculiar bug. The notion that anyone would have allowed themselves to be subjected to the type and duration of criticism and question of his character that he has received regarding his citizenship status for no discernible reason, simply won’t be believed by the public.

If he produces a forgery, it needs to contain something embarrassing. Personally I don’t think they could make it jive with other records. Releasing that would also result in a deluge of demands to see his other papers. Then it would get hard to refuse, because after all, What does he have to hide?